I knew that post would provoke some level of controversy. Happily, one example aside, it was reasoned.

@Portlander:

We agree, I think. In terms of whether or not we'll be able to climb out of our mountain of debt vs say whether France, etc, would.. I merely claimed we have a better shot of pulling it off because we're workaholics, in aggregate, over here. We put out more total work. Productivity per hour isn't interesting in terms of ability-to-save unless you also count #hours worked.

@ramoncreager:

I made my statements in context of certain beliefs which I'd better spell out:

1. There is no political will to reform the private health care system. I don't think anything will be done about it. Therefore we'll *continue* to spend absurd amount of money on it. Therefore we can't say "well, we'll just stop doing that and socialize healthcare instead". Anything we implement will be *on top of* the existing infrastrucutre, and *if* wildly successful, might over time begin to replace it.

2. Politicians don't do things on the basis of whether they make sense, or whether the country needs to be saved. They do things to get re-elected. Some notable counter-examples exist, but by and large this is the case. This point supports #1: the private health care industry owns enough politicians that there will be no reform. At least, I don't think.

--against the backdrop of all that, I claimed to believe we can't do what the western Europeans have done. I still believe that. Sorry for not laying out my assumptions/beliefs beforehand.

Though I'm definitely an advocate of universal healthcare and expanded childcare, and think the model the (western) Europeans ended up with is really great, I *do* think it's unsustainable in the here and now in the USA. This is because of the enormous national debt coupled with the enormous per-household private debt (credit cards, cars and mortgages).

Simply put, we're too poor to afford what they have, and it's our own fault. Decades of smoke, mirrors and mismanagement can't just be forgotten in a rush to the cookie jar. We will, one way or another, accept a lower standard of living than (western) Europe enjoys because we can't pay for a higher one. The longer we wait to accept that fact, the lower the final standard will be.

On the other hand, since our productivity is higher (aka we sacrifice more of our precious, irreplaceable time working), we ought to be able to eventually catch up. The opportunity cost of that catchup will be that we lose the leisure time (things like maternity leave) they will enjoy.

I'm not speaking of everyone in the country, naturally. The brunt of my projection will be borne by the poor and middle class, as always.

I was an only child growing up in the industrial wasteland of Michigan, and my folks couldn't pay for -one- kid to go to UM. The best part was that they became high earners (read: lower middle class instead of 'Po') just as I became a high school junior and that started to matter for financial aid purposes.

The only thing that saved me was a merit-based full ride to an out of state university. The alternatives were:

UM-Flint for several years while I painstakingly made my way through prereq classes, and a transfer for a couple years of Ann Arbor (probably commuting the hourlong drive) while I worked at the same time.

A service academy. Given the current state of the military, that would generally mean I'd still be stuck fighting an unjust war for no reason somewhere far away for peanuts.

--I have no sympathy for people who have 4 (!!!) children and don't have an ironclad plan in place to pay for their education. Having one or two without a plan is (I guess) basically defensible, since people won't face the notion that maybe they just shouldn't procreate. But 4?! Please.

For their children, the best I can say is: It's a rough world. Best you plan for yourself.

There is no need for a study. People are more polite IRL than they are on the Internet, as is widely known, because they feel more secure from any retaliation on the internet. Apply the same logic to armed vs unarmed people confronting one another IRL.

I believe courtesy evolved as a way of mitigating threat and avoiding confrontation. As we make confrontation less and less expensive, we naturally lessen the value of courtesy.

People would be a lot more polite, there would be a lot less crime, and there sure as hell wouldn't be any risk of people running planes into buildings if every citizen was presumed to be armed at all times.

I know, everyone else on Salon would prefer only the criminals and our masters possess weapons. I wish that weren't so; it's possible to be liberal and still be unwilling to surrender all personal sovereignty to the State. I also wish we had more than two legitimate political parties. Six or ten would be better.

A friend of mine recently accused me of being a libertarian over my position on this issue. I said "Really? Libertarians believe in soup kitchens and free public housing?"

I just go over to CNN and browse the stories. It's that simple. I don't need to expose myself to the hurricane of madness that swirls around the full-on nutball sites to take the opposition's talking points in hand.